(Plenty of raunchy sex and crude street talk — totally not for kids or the sexually modest.)
Continuing the Yo! theme for today, following “OY/YO at Stanford”.
… with today’s Daily Jocks ads, on the harness and jockstrap beat: DJX “back for 2020 with their brand new Circuit collection”, charged up with two raunchy shots of (my) verse inspired by the ads: the supremely unsubtle “Yo, Faggot!” and “Yo, Fucker!”
(The TitanMen TaXXX Day special offer ad for this year is heavy with massive erections from the 2017 gay porn flick Taxxx, so that’s off on AZBlogX. What’s here is packed with crude language about men’s bodies and mansex, definitely not suitable for kids or the sexually modest.)
The DVD cover, just barely penis-free, for Taxxx:
(Hot guys in very skimpy underwear, suggestive verse, but generally playful and not actually X-rated. Use your judgment.)
Today’s Daily Jocks sale ad, for Marco Marco Valentine’s Day homowear, with a caption in two parts, one raunchy doggerel, one Puckish:
(#1)
Lincoln Darwin Valentine
Is a cutup friend of mine
Loves the boys with all his heart
Loves them hard in every partAnd the youth, mistook by me,
Pleading for a lover’s fee.
Shall we their fond pageant see?
Lord, what fools these mortals be!
On AZBlogX today, a posting “Memorial mansex”, about a Lucas studio gay porn sale for Memorial Day 2018, with an ad offer (cropped below to avoid penises) showing three naked men with narrowed eyes, plus a shot of the onset of fellatio (with two men knee-deep in a pool of water, for added interest), to show you the sort of thing you can get from the Lucas sale offer:
(#1)
To come: on porn for the holidays; then on narrowed eyes and drooping eyelids and how these might be interpreted.
… the male model, in body-display, rather than fashion-display, mode — so only a little about language. On the other hand, this posting is, in word and image, at least technically SFW (though homo-steamy).
It begins with a Facebook comment from Ken Rudolph about image #1 in my “Hitchhiking” posting of yesterday:
(#1)
Ken asked:
Who is #1? And where did that still come from…it looks more like a regular movie than a porn.
Not any kind of movie, but a posed still done by a professional photographer (as are, I think, #2-7 in my hitchhiking posting, and the three photos in the accompanying AZBlogX posting). Meanwhile, a Google Images search led me to Saucier.
About the display of the male body, but also about gesture and facial expression.
Today, from the Daily Jocks people, an ad for products from the Pump! firm, specifically for a line of socks for working out, but with links to the company’s larger catalogue, which tends to feature underwear models “projecting steamy desirability” (as I put it in my Rafael Nadal posting) — in fact projecting a male-hustler persona while teasingly flaunting the pleasures of their bodies.
There’s shirt-lifting (focused on the abs), pants-lowering in the front (pointing towards the crotch), pants-lowering in the back (pointing towards the butt-crack), and armpit displays. The models stare intently into the viewers’ eyes, narrowing their own eyes (signalling arousal combined with dominance, rather than anger), and sometimes opening their lips slightly (another sign of arousal). They are scruffily hypermasculine, projecting not fitness and athleticism, but intense, even urgent, sexuality.
In the May 18th New Yorker, this lovely Charlie Hankin cartoon:
(#1)
On the caption: this is a show-business meme: We don’t want X; we want an X type. (We don’t want Whoopi Goldberg; we want a Whoopi Goldberg type.) But then there’s the image of a ring-tailed lemur, looking non-plussed — but this is exactly the way the creatures look in the wild:
(#2)
